- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:31:36 +1100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "'"'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no' <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, rubys@intertwingly.net, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > Silvia Pfeiffer writes: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: >> > Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> >> >> <track> is a timed resource. Neither transcript, nor description, nor >> >> posterdescription are timed - they cannot be parsed into cues and >> >> displayed time-synchronously over the video. You cannot misuse the >> >> track element in this way. >> > >> > Hmmm... I don’t recall seeing anywhere where it states that @kind="metadata" >> > was required to be a timed resource - is that specifically stated somewhere? >> >> It's kinda hard to find, but it's there. >> >> For example, the definition of what a text track is in >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-iframe-element.html#text-track-model >> lists what a track consists of. >> >> One part of that is a list of cues: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-iframe-element.html#text-track-list-of-cues >> i.e. each track consist of a list of cues. This is independent of what >> kind of text track we're dealing with. >> >> And a little further on the actual definition of a text track through its cues: >> "A text track cue is the unit of time-sensitive data in a text track, >> corresponding for instance for subtitles and captions to the text that >> appears at a particular time and disappears at another time." >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-video-element.html#text-track-list-of-cues >> >> The whole concept of text tracks is built around timed cues. >> > In retrospect perhaps calling them "text" tracks is an unfortunate > misnomer. "Timed" tracks might have been better, less readily > misunderstood. It's really short of "Timed Text Tracks". > I suppose the term "text" tracks is a holdover from the early days when > some of the HTML 5 people hadn't yet grocked the extensive range of > alternative media required to support accessibility, i.e. a "sign > language translation" is not a "text" track, though a caption certainly > is. Well, the idea is to have a text alternative that AT can deal with. So there is some merit to restricting it to "text". Naturally - since we're on the Web - marked-up text is also regarded as text, so other content could seep in, too. Also, there is a misunderstanding: Sign language video is not provided through a <track> element. It is provided through a <video> element that is synchronized to the video through a controller. We have more than just text tracks as a solution to video accessibility needs. > I recall our meeting at Stanford some years hence. Those of us from > accessibility who were just joining the HTML 5 work effort found > ourselves rather concerned at how disability support was being called > "captioning," causing us to start insisting on a requirements gathering > phase. > > Would future authoring be assisted by changing this to "timed" tracks > now? Some pain, of course, but future gain? It might help to add a sentence explicitly explaining what text tracks are. Maybe something like: they provide synchronized text-based cues for the media element, traditionally called "timed text tracks". > I don't see this as important as other discussions recently in this > thread, but it did seem worth noting. Indeed, just a nit that we have to keep in mind. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 21:32:34 UTC